Rewarding Interdisciplinary Teaching

An interview with James McKenney,
American Association of Community Colleges

In some ways, two-year colleges face demands similar to those facing
high schools--to prepare students both for further education and for work.
Do interdisciplinary programs offer a viable response to that challenge?

I do not totally accept the premise that the challenges facing K-12 and
community colleges are comparable. That would be far too simplistic,
given the tradition in community colleges of planning programs in two-year
time blocks. I appreciate that these time frames may lack significance
given the drop-in/drop-out behavior patterns of our students.
Nonetheless, credit-bearing course work at community colleges is
generally blocked in such a manner.

K-12 has the luxury of being able to block learning according to age
ranges. Part of the attraction of integrated courses in K-12 is the
usefulness of such an approach to draw in a large range of learners at
varying degrees of motivation. Also, it could be argued that integrated
learning is an effective strategy for reaching students with different
learning styles. Thus, the case for integrated learning is probably more
easily made in K-12.

Conversely, the age range of students populating community college classes
is much broader than in K-12, and the range of motivation much less
volatile. While it is true that the traditional college-age student might
exhibit many of the volatile characteristics of K-12 students, I would
guess that half of those students would also defy the premise of this
question. Certainly, the non-traditional community college adult
population (whose average age nationally is 29) would have in place a much
higher degree of learning readiness factors.

I hope this does not sound like I am digressing on a small point. It
seems to me that the strongest argument for integrated academics is for
those young students who need to strengthen their academic foundation but
who either may not see the relevance of these courses or may have learning
styles that conflict with the traditional book-learning and theory-based
approaches to instruction.

Given these differences, I would suggest that integrated academics might
be very useful for the myriad of non-credit basic skills enhancement
courses offered at two-year and four-year institutions. In these courses,
I think one can assume that skill application will be critical for
transferring knowledge.

One could make the argument that traditional community college mathematics
and language coursework should largely reflect the experiences students
must master to survive in the four-year college environment. That is not
to say that this course work could not afford a greater indulgence with
applications. But these courses were built over time to reflect the
anticipated challenges at the transfer institution.

It is my experience that academic support courses for occupational
curricula are, in general, more closely tied to an applications approach.
For example, the technical mathematics and report writing courses are, by
nature, applied courses. One can argue for a greater degree of
integration by embedding the mathematics and writing within the
occupational courses. But that could easily undermine the learning of
major principles, which in turn could impede access to further education.

I would conclude by saying that community college faculty and
administrators should spend more time looking across curricula for
opportunities to integrate principles. In this manner, sound academic
building blocks could be preserved even as one seeks to integrate new
principles or cantilever significant points across different curricula.
For example, it could be argued that computer skills should be integrated
across the curriculum.

This seems to suggest that a primary purpose of two-year colleges
is to prepare students to transfer to four-year colleges. Is this
implication warranted? If so, where do you see technical education
fitting in?

I think we need to integrate academics in the technical areas. Community
colleges have already created support courses in mathematics and English
that are customized for technical programs. True, these are not
integrated in the fashion that I would like. However, I am not so sure
that what we have created is not sufficient given that the objectives for
integration in secondary schools are not present at the postsecondary
level.

The degree of occupational crystallization is such that postsecondary
students should understand why they are in an academic course which has
been created in support of their occupational program needs (e.g.,
technical mathematics, technical writing, anatomy & physiology). More
customization at the postsecondary level might interfere with the
potential for students to transfer--which we should not rule out given the
likelihood of changes in students' goals and the massive changes in
program adoption underway at the university level.

I am only saying that in this technical and information age, the lines are
blurring between community college students' goals and university goals.
We need to be careful about foundation academic courses so that
universities do not judge them as too watered down and therefore useless
for transfer credit. This could have a chilling effect on the soundness
of all our programs, whether the intent is to transfer or not.

What other strategies besides interdisciplinary courses would help
students learn to use mathematics in a variety of real-world settings?

I'm convinced that some of the materials being developed through the NSF
ATE grants are viable alternatives. One particular program--to create,
develop, market and sell a new car--is focused on general education
courses that might be used to support a manufacturing curriculum. The
mathematical problems of this program have already exhausted the
parameters of the two-year college transfer mathematics offerings.
Hagerstown Junior College in Maryland is developing this particular
CD-ROM. New Hampshire is creating one that infuses physics into an
environmental problem surrounding the siting of a new plant in a small
town.

These approaches are interdisciplinary and can be applied broadly at
community colleges. Once created, they will offer inexpensive ways to
introduce real problems in mathematics courses. Also, the
interdisciplinary "heavy lifting" will have been done by a few
institutions, thus relieving others of having to recreate the wheel. Such
endeavors can become showcases to stimulate reluctant faculty who will
see the richness of the experience and realize that quality has been
enhanced rather than compromised.

Some educators have argued that departmental boundaries in education
may set up artificial barriers to collaborations on curriculum development
and improving instructional strategies. Based on your interest in the
school-to-work movement and the fact that disciplinary boundaries are not
relevant in the workplace, what do you think is the proper balance of
disciplinary and interdisciplinary curricula in education, especially in
grades 10-14?

I regret that I may waffle on this one. I do think a balance is
appropriate. I still think we need faculties organized within
disciplines in order that internal rigorous debate can take place
regarding decisions of course and curriculum policy. On the other hand,
there is nothing wrong with having folks be adjunct members of other
departments in order to cross fertilize and to share in the
interdisciplinary dialogue. Such relationships should be encouraged
through various mechanisms like release time or salary enhancements. We
ought to reinforce interdepartmental dialogue, cooperation, and teaching
as much as possible. The private sector finds such behavior useful in
raising productivity. I think we might find the same to be true with
respect to enhancing learning and, therefore, student success.

What opportunities for professional development of two-year college
faculty do you think are offered by the creation of interdisciplinary
programs? How can we convince two-year college administrators that these
efforts should be acknowledged in the faculty rewards system (for
promotion, tenure, merit pay, etc.)?

In a sense, I have already answered this question. It is my observation
that interdisciplinary courses and team teaching provide a substantial
amount of team building, faculty learning, and professional development.
As I mentioned, the reward system is vital in driving these
kinds of behaviors. If you don't do that, you essentially divorce your
desired changes from the existing reward system. You are telling folks
that it matters, but not too much.

I should also add that I think mathematics leaders should be looking ahead
to the substantial opportunities they have to change the culture with the
large-scale retirements that are on the horizon. Most community colleges
are about the same age. Faculty will begin retiring in droves over the
next 5-10 years. This represents both a problem and an opportunity.
Smart administrators should begin guiding this process in terms of
creating the department of the future. If you want interdisciplinary
behavior, you should reward and replace faculty on that basis. The message
will be clear.

James McKenney is Director of Economic Development at the American
Association of Community Colleges. He can be reached by e- mail at
jmckenney@aacc.nche.edu.